skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 30769 Find in a Library
Title: BRADY V. MARYLAND AND THE PROSECUTOR'S DUTY TO DISCLOSE (FROM CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS REVIEW, 1974 BY JON S SCHULTZ AND JON P THAMES - SEE NCJ-30751)
Author(s): ANON
Corporate Author: William S Hein and Co, Inc
United States of America
Date Published: 1974
Page Count: 29
Sponsoring Agency: William S Hein and Co, Inc
Buffalo, NY 14209
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: IN THIS 1963 CASE, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO SOME OF THE INFORMATION IN THE PROSECUTOR'S FILES.
Abstract: THIS DECISION LEFT OPEN A NUMBER OF QUESIONS CONCERNING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THIS RIGHT: WHETHER THE DEFENSE MUST REQUEST THE INFORMATION; AT WHAT POINT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS THE INFORMATION MUST BE DISCLOSED; WHAT CONSTITUTES SUPPRESSION; AND THE STANDARD TO BE USED IN DECIDING WHAT EVIDENCE MUST BE DISCLOSED TO THE DEFENSE OR TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF ENFORCING THE DUTY THAT IT IMPOSED ON PROSECUTORS. THIS COMMENT EXAMINES THE CASES THAT HAVE FOLLOWED, INTERPRETED, AND EXPANDED THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN BRADY AND EXAMINES THEIR RESPONSES TO THESE QUESTIONS. IT CONCLUDES THAT THE COURTS HAVE, ON THE WHOLE, BEEN TOO MUCH CONCERNED WITH ATTEMPTING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL, AND TOO LITTLE WITH THE CENTRAL INQUIRY REQUIRED BY BRADY'S RATIONALE: WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN ACCORDED A FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE DUE PROCESS STANDARD. IT SUGGESTS THAT IN LIGHT OF BOTH THE FAIR TRIAL RATIONALE OF BRADY AND THE STATE INTERESTS INVOLVED IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, THE PROSECUTOR'S ENTIRE FILE SHOULD, EXCEPT IN SPECIAL CASES, BE OPEN TO DEFENSE INSPECTION. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)
Index Term(s): Judicial decisions; Pretrial discovery; Prosecution; Right to Due Process; Right to fair trial; Rights of the accused; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=30769

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.